Access of Poor Households to Primary Education in Rural IndiaThe main objective of the working paper series of the IIMA is to help faculty members, research staff and doctoral students

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENTAHMEDABAD INDIA

Research and Publications

Access of Poor Households to Primary Education in Rural India

Ravindra H. Dholakia Shreekant Iyengar

W.P. No.2008-02-02 February 2008

The main objective of the working paper series of the IIMA is to help faculty members, research staff and doctoral students to speedily share their research findings with professional colleagues and test their research findings at the pre-publication stage. IIMA is committed to

maintain academic freedom. The opinion(s), view(s) and conclusion(s) expressed in the working paper are those of the authors and not that of IIMA.

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AHMEDABAD-380 015

INDIA

IIMA INDIA Research and Publications

W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 2


Ravindra H. Dholakia Shreekant Iyengar1

Abstract

The Planning Commission’s premise that the growth in India has bypassed the weaker

sections due to their ineffective access to the basic services like primary education

needs to be tested against the evidence. Traditionally identified weaker section on social

criteria (SC and ST population) seems to have a similar or relatively better access to the

primary education. However, there is no direct evidence available for the weaker section

on the economic criteria or the population living below poverty line (BPL). The present

paper attempts to provide an empirical evidence for the premise of the Planning

Commission from the household survey of BPL families in five states of India including

the survey of primary schools for the same states and localities.

Our findings suggest that there is a problem of access of the poor (BPL) households to

the primary education services in rural areas. Primary enrolment ratios among the

children of poor households are considerably lower than the respective state average

and also the aggregate enrolment ratio of the country. Our findings also reveal that the

incentives such as mid-day meals, free textbooks and cash subsidies given by

government schools to the poor children do actually reach them. The problem of

insufficient effective access of the poor to primary education still persists. It calls for a

change in the policy level thinking. Qualitative aspects like school infrastructural

deficiencies and functioning of teachers having a direct bearing on the quality and

access of education in the rural areas need urgent attention.

Keywords: Poor households, Primary education, Rural India.

1 Ravindra H. Dholakia – [email protected]

Shreekant Iyengar – [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 3


Ravindra H. Dholakia Shreekant Iyengar2

I. Introduction

Primary education covering reading, writing and arithmetic is considered as a

crucial aspect of quality of life. Elementary education, under the Indian

constitution, is recognised as a fundamental right of individuals (Bajpai et.al,

2005). Thus it is imperative to ensure that every individual in the country is

literate with primary education. The planning commission of India in its Approach

Paper for the 11th Plan (2006) explicitly states, “large parts of our population are

still to experience a decisive improvement in their standard of living. The

percentage of the population below the poverty line is declining, but only at a

modest pace. Far too many people still lack access to basic services such as

health, education, clean drinking water and sanitation facilities without which they

cannot be empowered to claim their share in the benefits of growth” (p.1). It also

states that, “The provision of good quality education is most important equalizer

in society and it is time we launched a major effort in this area” (p.75).

Total literacy with primary education would be possible through a complete

coverage of all children in the primary education age group (6-11) through

2 The authors are respectively Professor and Research Associate of Economics area in the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. The authors are thankful to Prof. Nirupam Bajpai (Earth Institute, Columbia University) for his useful comments and suggestions regarding the questionnaires for the survey. They are also thankful to Mr. Prakash Parmar for his help in survey and useful field notes in Rajasthan and, to Mr. Rasananda Panda for help in survey in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 4

compulsory enrolment in primary schooling. In India the overall gross enrolment

ratio (GER) for the primary section was 104 % in 2005-06 but the net enrolment

ratio (NER) for primary education was only 85% during the same period. The

millennium development goals (MDG) attainment in India would require NER in

primary education to be 100%. This would require quantitative and qualitative

changes in the educational infrastructure in the rural areas. In India the proportion

of schools with single classroom and single teacher schools was 14% and 18%

respectively in rural area during 2005-06. The average student classroom ratio

for rural schools was 43 students and was found more than 60 in 21% schools

(State Report Card, 2005-06). However, it is not enough to provide the

infrastructure and manpower in the rural areas to improve the primary education

services, but its access to each and every section of the society needs to be

assured.

As discussed earlier the Approach Paper for the 11th Plan asserts the need to

ensure access of education services to the vulnerable section of the society. The

vulnerable section is traditionally linked to the social criteria and hence with the

scheduled castes/tribes (SC & ST). In this context it is quite relevant to check the

enrolment ratios among SC and ST population and compare them to the overall

ratio. Table 1 gives us the overall enrolment ratios along with the ones for the SC

and ST population in primary education for each of the states and union

territories of India. We find that the GER (estimated) for SC and ST population in

the country is greater than that of the total population in almost all major states

and also for the national average. Thus it seems that the section that is

traditionally assumed to be vulnerable from social criteria does not have the

problem of lower access to the primary education services than the rest of the

population. The Approach Paper, therefore, could be right in its assertion only if

the vulnerable section is defined on the basis of economic criteria rather than

social criteria. The access to primary education services has to be checked

among the poor and the poorest of the poor population especially in the rural

areas. However, there is no direct evidence available that indicates the degree of


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 5

the reach of these services to the poor/weaker section in the rural areas of the

country to justify such an assertion. It becomes essential to directly verify such a

hypothesis regarding the extent of these services reaching the poor. This is

because it has implications on policy options and measures to achieve the MDG.

A household survey of the poor section in the rural areas of selected states of

India would be required. A similar sample survey of some selected states has

been conducted for the last three years covering by now 5 major states in India

as a part of a larger study. The survey not only aimed at collecting quantitative

information regarding the access but also to identify the qualitative aspects

responsible for lower levels of enrolments among the children of the poor

households.

The present paper attempts to identify the degree of the access of the vulnerable

section (on economic criteria) to the primary education services. We use the

information collected through the sample survey of poor households conducted in

the five states of India so far providing evidence regarding the extent of primary

education services reaching them. In the next section, we discuss the

methodology used for the selection of the sample for the household survey. In the

third section, we discuss the findings of the household survey regarding the

enrolment of poor children in primary schools, reasons for their drop out and the

incentives and facilities received from the government by the poor households. In

the fourth section, we review the situation and discuss certain qualitative aspects

of the public as well as private primary schools in and around the areas of the

sampled households on the basis of a separate sample survey of such schools. It

aims at pointing out reasons for the poor quality of education in the primary

schools. The fifth and final section concludes the paper.


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 6

Table 1 : Enrolment Ratios for States of India : Overall and SC & ST, 2005 - 06 State/UT GER NER SC GER@ ST GER@

Andaman & Nicobar Islands 70.83 55.37 NA 76.08 Andhra Pradesh 96.84 75.28 106.57 126.3 Arunachal Pradesh 153.94 110.58 281.41 168.48 Assam 96.65 88.84 142.08 118.08 Bihar 92.44 84.13 92.03 130.77 Chandigarh 72.55 59.31 45.1 NA Chhattisgarh 131.48 NA 151.82 138.58 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 123.73 93.82 268.13 116.47 Daman & Div 85.7 70.11 92.99 88.7 Delhi 89.57 65.81 58.98 NA Goa 54.12 48.17 68.77 NA Gujarat 100.3 78.89 100.99 117.06 Haryana 57.9 38.08 89.42 NA Himachal Pradesh 110.53 87.29 123.63 141 Jammu & Kashmir 94.4 75.86 118.2 111.06 Jharkhand 123.58 63.66 144.41 155.76 Karnataka 93.58 83.97 108.49 101.43 Kerala * 76.16 63.9 93.34 139.1 Lakshadweep 87.39 69.33 NA 84.91 Madhya Pradesh 129.76 94.22 142.57 148.68 Maharashtra 96.82 79.32 128.22 112.81 Manipur 132.1 102.27 157.41 148.35 Meghalaya 132.83 94.01 288.48 140.87 Mizoram ** 155.76 117.66 NA 156.46 Nagaland ** 133.13 110.38 NA 138.21 Orissa 117.38 94.05 138.52 124.67 Pondicherry 79.54 56.66 74.99 NA Punjab 65.34 51.78 102 NA Rajasthan 112.72 81.52 126.17 133.4 Sikkim 138 94.54 190.98 240.15 Tamil Nadu 118.58 93.92 137.73 190.37 Tripura ** 133.4 121 139.3 152.3 Utter Pradesh 107.27 97.74 135.66 NA Uttaranchal 97 83.32 136.26 118.63 West Bengal 104.45 82.76 121.83 114.18 India 103.77 84.53 113.16 110.58 ‘*’: Data not fully reported. ‘**’: Technically NER cannot Exceed 100. NER above hundred may be because of the migration of 6-11 years from the surrounding areas after the last census. ‘@’: Estimated ratio on basis of overall GER and proportion of SC and ST population in the age group 5-14. ‘NA’: Not Available. Source: www.dpepmis.org and census 2001.

http://source: www.dpepmis.org and census 2001./


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 7

II. Methodology of Household Survey

In order to get an idea of the situation of primary education and its provision

among the weaker section of the population in the rural areas, a survey of

households was conducted in five states – Madhya Pradesh (MP) and Uttar

Pradesh (UP) in 2005, Rajasthan in 2006 and, Andhra Pradesh (AP) and

Karnataka in 2007. These states were surveyed in different years as a part of a

larger project3. These states were such that they covered a major proportion of

population and geographical area of the country. UP is the most populous state in

the country with 16.4% population of India and Rajasthan and MP are first and

second largest states in terms of geographical area with 10.9% and 9.7% of the

total area of the nation respectively. Similarly AP and Karnataka also have major

proportion of population (7.4% and 5.5%) and the geographical area (8.7% and

6.1%) of India. In all, these five states form 40.1% of the total population and

42.8% of the total geographical area of the nation. Moreover, Rajasthan and UP

are from the North India, MP from the Central India and AP and Karnataka are

from the South India covering the diverse geographical canvas and cultures.

Finally, MP, Rajasthan and UP belong to the so-called BIMARU states indicating

economically poor and problematic states, whereas AP is economically average

and Karnataka is economically better off state.

In each state one district was selected in consultation with the state government

for detailed study. However for Rajasthan two districts were taken due to its

special geographical features of desert region and tribal area. A sample survey of

poor households and primary schools in each of the selected district was

3 The Hewlet foundation funded project jointly undertaken by the Earth Institute of the Columbia University, New York and Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad is on ‘Scaling up Services in Rural India’.


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 8

conducted. It mainly aimed at getting an idea about type of primary education

service availed by people (public or private), reasons for low enrolments in

schools, coverage of various benefits provided by government, household

expenditure on education, perceptions of the poor households regarding quality

of the education services, etc.

In the second stage we selected five villages from each district .In order to cover

the geographical spread of the district, we began by selecting 5 talukas/tehseels

in each district and then selecting one village from each selected taluka/tehseel4.

The villages were selected such that they reflect the condition of rural areas of

the respective taluka/tehseel as closely as possible on various criteria such as

percentage of SC and ST population, worker population ratio, female and overall

literacy rate and sex ratio. The size of the village in terms of households and

population was also considered so that it is neither too big nor too small

compared to the average in the taluka/tehseel.

The sample for the survey was drawn from the households belonging to

economically weaker section of the society. It, thus, became mandatory to

identify the poor households in the selected villages. In MP and UP we selected

the sample from the list of households living below poverty line (BPL) prepared

by the district administration for the year 1997. However for the rest of the states

we obtained the list of households from a detailed BPL survey that was

conducted during 2002-03. It was called the BPL Census 2002 and was carried

out in the entire nation5. The BPL Census collected information on the basis of a

questionnaire covering various aspects. All the households were then given

4 The taluka/tehseel is an administrative unit in a district.

5 In UP and MP, the results of this Census (2002-03) were not tabulated by the time we needed them to draw our sample. Hence, we had to use the alternative list readily available for the year 1997.


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 9

points/ranks for each question depending upon their responses. Table 2 gives the

13 questions and the pattern of awarding points for responses to each question.

On the basis of the points it was found that any household below 15 points would

be the weakest on all fronts i.e. the poorest of poor (POP). Moreover, considering

the households that were not weak in all aspects but were overall poor, another

cut off at 25 points was decided. Our sample mainly consisted of the POP

families but, in order to fulfil the required size of our sample in each selected

village, we sequentially added points to make the final cut off at 18 points. In all

1354 households were surveyed in 30 villages from the five states.

Table 2: Scheme of Awarding Points on Possible Responses in the BPL Survey, Rajasthan, 2005

Points Sr.No Questions 0 1 2 3 4

1 Land (in Ha.) No land


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 10

Table 2: Scheme of Awarding Points on Possible Responses in the BPL Survey, Rajasthan, 2005

Points Sr.No Questions 0 1 2 3 4

10 Situation of children

Do not got to school & employed

Going to school and employed

Not going to school and not employed

Going to school but working.

Going to school and not working.

11 Type of debts

For daily use from non-insti. sources.

For agriculture from non-insti. sources.

For other use from non-insti. sources.

Only insti. Sources No debts.

12

Reason for staying away from family.

Accidental work

For seasonal employment

Any other type of employ.

Not staying away. Any other reason.

13 Requirement of aid.

For employment

For self-employment

For training and skill addition.

For housing. Aid not required.

Source: BPL Survey, 2002-03.

III. Findings of the Household Survey

We found from our sample that the average annual income of the households

was quite low indicating that the selected households indeed belonged to the

poorest of the poor population. However we found significant differences in the

average annual incomes in our samples from different states. The average

annual incomes in the three BIMARU states were Rs. 9777 in MP, Rs. 7924 in

UP and about Rs. 15663 in Rajasthan, whereas it was Rs. 27973 in AP and Rs.

20377 in Karnataka. The literacy rates among the poor households were also

considerably low. The literacy rates in our sample households were 52% for MP,

58% for UP, 37% for Rajasthan, 44% for AP and 41% for Karnataka. It is worth

noting here that eventhough the overall literacy rates for these states differ

marginally; they differ substantially for the poor population (See Table 3). It is

interesting to see that the literacy rates in our sample of poor population are

much lower in Rajasthan, AP and Karnataka than in UP and MP. The former are

economically better off than the latter. The distance of the literacy rate among the

poor from the average is considerably less in the economically less well-off states

than among the economically better-off states. Thus, better economic condition in

a state does not guarantee access of the poor to the primary education. In fact, it


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 11

seems to be associated with lower access! This clearly suggests that the states

have to make special efforts to improve access of poor to primary education while

achieving economic progress. Otherwise, growth could become non- inclusive

and result in by-passing the poor in education.

Table 3: Literacy Rates in the Selected States

States Overall LR Rural Areas LR LR among POP (Our Sample)

1 2 3 4 MP 63.7 57.8 51.9 UP 56.3 52.5 58.4 Rajasthan 60.4 55.3 37.3 AP 60.5 54.5 43.9 Karnataka 66.6 59.3 41.2 Source: - Columns 2 and 3 from Census of India, 2001 and column 4 from Our Sample Survey.

Out of the children in school going age in our sample, the proportion of children

attending school was 92% in MP, 83% in UP and 79% in Rajasthan. This

proportion for AP is 83% and for Karnataka just 56% which is the least among all

the states. Thus, the proportion of children remaining out of the primary school

among the poor is only 8% in MP, 17% in UP and AP, 21% in Rajasthan and as

high as 44% in Karnataka. This is a very significant indicator of the lack of

effective access of the poor to the primary education in the state.

It is possible to calculate the enrolment ratios from the data collected for the poor

households in our sample. Table 4 shows the GER and NER for primary classes

in our sample in the five selected states. We can see that the sample GERs in

MP, UP and Rajasthan are marginally lower whereas for AP and Karnataka they

are significantly lower than the national average. On the other hand, the sample

NERs for all the states except UP are substantially less than the national

average. However, comparing the GERs and NERs of the poor population with

the aggregate ratios for the respective states from Table 1 above, we find

significant differences in both ratios across all the states. We also find that these

ratios differ for girls and boys in different states. In MP, Chittaugarh (Rajasthan)


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 12

and AP boys have relatively higher enrolments whereas, in UP, Jalore

(Rajasthan) and Karnataka girls have relatively greater enrolment. In Karnataka,

both GER and NER were found to be extremely low for boys in our sample which

represent the children of the weaker section of society in the rural areas. The

lower enrolment ratios among the poor households, compared to the average in

the respective states provide a measure of the relative degree of access of the

rural poor to primary education.

Table 4: GER and NER for Primary Classes in The Sample States/Districts GER NER

Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total MP Raisen 98.0% 92.1% 94.9% 76.2% 74.6% 75.4% UP Unnao 96.3% 103.9% 99.7% 83.2% 83.1% 83.2%

Jalore 86.0% 97.9% 91.7% 62.4% 76.9% 69.3% Rajasthan

Chittaurgarh 98.0% 89.3% 94.3% 66.3% 58.7% 63.1%

AP Nalagonda 87.4% 71.1% 80.5% 77.7% 67.1% 73.2% Karnataka Chittradurga 52.5% 84.5% 69.6% 46.5% 75.9% 62.2% GER: - Gross Enrolment Ratio NER: - Net Enrolment Ratio Source: - Household Survey 2005, 2006 and 2007

The non attendance or dropout from the school among the children of the poor

households is due to various reasons. We collected responses from the

households during our survey. Table 5 gives the distribution of the children not

attending school by reasons. It shows that this distribution varies for different

states. Among the various reasons, household (HH) activity is one of the

commonly stated reasons mainly by girls.

Table 5 : Percentage of Children by Reason for Non-Attendance and Irregularity in Attending School

State (District)

Household Activity Employment Sickness Marriage

No Interest

Teacher Related

Other Reason All

Boys 15.79% 15.79% - - 31.58% 26.32% 10.53% 100%

Girls 18.18% 18.18% - - 54.55% 9.09% - 100%MP(Raisen)

Total 16.67% 16.67% - - 40.00% 20.00% 6.67% 100%

Boys 27.27% 54.55% - - 13.64% - 4.55% 100%

Girls 60.87% 17.39% - - 8.70% - 13.04% 100%UP(Unnao)

Total 44.44% 35.56% - - 11.11% - 8.89% 100%

Boys 6.40% 10.90% 20.90% - 28.20% 13.60% 20.00% 100%

Girls 31.70% 2.40% 28.00% - 18.30% 2.40% 17.20% 100%Rajasthan

(Jalore) Total 17.20% 7.30% 24.00% - 24.00% 8.80% 18.70% 100%

Boys 2.10% 23.20% 18.90% - 25.30% 1.00% 29.50% 100%

Girls 32.80% 12.50% 10.90% - 14.10% 3.10% 26.60% 100%Rajasthan

(Chittaurgarh) Total 14.50% 18.90% 15.70% - 20.80% 1.80% 28.30% 100%

Boys 3.7% 81.48% - - 7.41% - 7.41% 100%

Girls 18.75% 75.00% - 6.25% - - - 100%AP

(Nalagonda) Total 11.86% 77.97% - 3.39% 3.39% - 3.39% 100%

Boys 1.39% 55.56% 1.39% - 11.11% - 30.55% 100%

Girls 15.84% 46.53% 0.99% 1.98% 8.91% - 25.75% 100%Karnataka

(Chittradurga) Total 9.83% 50.29% 1.16% 1.16% 9.82% - 27.74% 100%

Source: - Household Survey 2005, 2006 and 2007

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AHMEDABAD INDIA


INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENTAHMEDABAD INDIA


Although it is not a major reason for the total children (boys and girls combined),

it is a significant cause for girls in the poor households to drop out. Another

reason stated, which is again common in all the states, is the employment of

children in the school going age. This proportion is high in UP (35.56%), AP

(77.97%) and Karnataka (50.29%) and considerably low in MP and Rajasthan.

Sacrificing school for employment is a clear indicator of the poor economic

condition of the families. These two causes together imply that an economic

compulsion of the family is an important determinant of school dropouts among

the poor. Sickness is also another reason for absence of children from schools.

However it is mainly in the two districts of Rajasthan where children have stated

sickness as a reason – 24% in Jalore and 16% in Chittaurgarh. Jalore, which is a

desert region, has the highest proportion of children in this category. In Karnataka

this proportion is very low (1%). The reason of marriage has been stated by girls

only in the southern states of AP and Karnataka with very small proportions of

3% and 1% respectively. No interest in school is also a reason given with a

relatively higher proportion of boys stating it in all the states other than MP. In fact

in MP it is the major reason with 40% of total children stating it for their absence

in school. Also in Rajasthan this proportion is significant. Both these states have

considerable amount of tribal population that probably does not give enough

importance to primary education. The teacher related reason implies the

irregularity in presence of teacher(s) as they do not stay in the village and

commute from the nearby urban locations. This has a direct effect on the

functioning of the schools specifically in the case of single teacher schools.

The category of ‘other reason’ accounts for a significant proportion in Rajasthan

and Karnataka. Although this reason is common among children in all states, its

percentage is low in MP, UP and AP. ‘Other reasons’ include the distance to the

school, grazing of cattle, helping on family farms and sickness of some other

family member. The school distance is more related to girls than boys as parents

are reluctant to send their adolescent girls to relatively far off schools i.e., about 2

to 5 kms. The problem of distance is relevant in the case of upper primary and

secondary schools since most villages have primary schools. However during the


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 15

school survey we also found some primary schools located somewhat far away

from the village settlement.

Among the children attending the schools a major proportion went to the

public/government schools. In MP 97.7% and in UP 87.8% children went to public

school. In the two districts of Rajasthan, 92.6% in Jalore and 95.3% in

Chittaurgarh went to public school. For the southern states the proportions were

93.2% and 88.5% for AP and Karnataka respectively. The proportion of children

being sent to private schools varies from about 2% in MP, 5% to 7% in Rajasthan

and AP and nearly 12% in Karnataka and UP. As per our discussions with the

households during the survey, we found that the people do consider private

schools to be better than government schools in terms of quality of education and

facilities. However, the cost of education in the private schools as compared to

government schools, in terms of fees and other expenditures, is much higher.

Moreover, the poor were induced to send their children to the government

schools because they received certain incentives such as textbooks, cash

subsidies, uniforms, mid-day meals, etc. Considering all such costs – direct and

indirect – of sending the children to the private school particularly for the families

below poverty line, the fact that about 2 to 12% of poor families sent their children

to private primary schools is an eye-opener. It indicates two things: one, the poor

families do value education; and two, there is a significant difference in perceived

quality of education between the public and private schools.

We enquired with these households for the type of incentives their children

received from the government schools. Table 6 gives us the percentage

distribution of children receiving the incentives in all the five states.


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 16

Table 6: Incentives Received by Children of Poor Households Attending Schools MP UP Rajasthan AP Karnataka

Incentives Raisen Unnao Jalore Chittaurgarh Nalagonda Chittradurga

% Getting Cash Subsidy 57.1% 86.4% 0% 36.8% 4.6% 61.5%

% Getting Midday meals 75.5% 88.6% 77.2% 71.8% 70.4% 81.8%

% Getting Textbooks 96.6% 93% 97.8% 102.7% * 88.5% 84.9%

% Getting Uniform 45.6% 2.2% 0% 0% 1.2% 84.4%

‘*’: Due to drop out after receiving textbooks.

Source:- Household Survey 2005, 2006 and 2007

We can see that the children of the weaker sections in the rural areas of all these

states do receive benefits of midday meals and free textbooks. The midday

meals benefit is given to students of the primary section only whereas the figures

in the table pertain to all children of the poor households attending schools. It was

found that the free textbooks were available to almost all eligible students in our

sample. This is because the proportion of students in public schools matches with

the proportion receiving the free textbooks indicating a near complete coverage.

In fact in UP and Rajasthan the proportion of children receiving free textbooks is

slightly greater than the students actually going to public school. This means that

there is a possibility that some families registered their children’s name in public

schools to avail benefits, but actually sent them to private schools. The incentive

of cash subsidies was also given to substantial number of children in MP, UP,

Rajasthan (Chittaurgarh) and Karnataka. A significant number of children also

received school uniforms but only in MP and Karnataka. Thus, the access of the

poor children to various incentives in primary school is not problematic.

Apart from the incentives, our survey also reveals details regarding the access of

certain school facilities to the children of the poor households. Table 7

summarizes the finding regarding the same for different states.


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 17

Table 7: Access to Primary School Facilities among Children of Poor Households

MP UP Rajasthan AP Karnataka Facilities

Raisen Unnao Jalore Chittaurgarh Nalagonda Chittradurga

% Getting School Supplies 2.3% 1.1% 0% 0% 0% 3.2%

% Getting Transport facility 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11.1%

% Getting Library facility 7.6% 1.9% 33.2% 43.2% 3.2% 23.5%

% Getting Sports facility 19.3% 13.3% 48.7% 43.2% 4.7% 37.3%

Source:- Household Survey 2005, 2006 and 2007

The facilities of school supplies and transport are not prevalent in any of the

states. In Karnataka, it seems that the students of private schools get transport

facility since the government schools do not provide any such facilities. The

library and the sports facilities are available in Rajasthan and Karnataka but in

other states their supply to the poor is quite low. Thus we find that the access of

the poor children to these primary school facilities is quite limited.

The average annual expenditures on education by households were Rs. 421 for

MP, Rs.473 for UP. This expenditure was significantly different in two districts of

Rajasthan with Rs 474 in Jalore and Rs.179 for Chittaurgarh. In AP it was Rs.798

and for Karnataka it was Rs.787. Since these figures are for different points of

time and with states of different income levels, we should consider the

percentage of household income spent on education. The percentages are

4.31% (MP), 5.97% (UP), 2.06% (Rajasthan – 2.93 Jalore & 1.18% Chittaurgarh),

2.85% (AP) and 3.86% (Karnataka). The expenditure per child on education had

large differences in these states. It was as low as Rs. 198 in MP to a high of

Rs.921 in Karnataka. In UP, Rajasthan and AP it was Rs. 227, Rs. 300 and

Rs.758 respectively.


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 18

IV. Sample Survey of Schools and its Findings

Along with the household survey, a detailed sample survey of primary schools

was also conducted in all the five selected states. During our field visit we

decided to cover primary schools in and around the selected village for

household survey. Categorising broadly, we covered mainly two types of schools

– government primary schools and private primary schools. In all we covered

about 155 government and 46 private primary schools in all the states. This

survey was conducted to get an idea about the quantity and quality of

infrastructure and manpower in government and private schools in the rural

areas. We also gathered information regarding some other qualitative aspects

relevant to the schools in their functioning through discussions and observations

along with the formal questionnaire.

Our findings revealed that the physical infrastructure in some of the government

schools was in dilapidated condition, especially in the northern states. The

classrooms were not in usable condition and hence the students were made to sit

in the verandas or sometimes even on the ground outside the school. We found

one primary school in Rajasthan having no building at all. Such schools could not

function regularly during the rainy season or even at time of acute hot and cold

weather conditions. It was also found that most of the government schools had

inadequate number of classrooms in the school building. This was either because

of poor maintenance of the older classrooms and hence could not be used, or

due to use of one of the classrooms as a store room of food grains and other

material for the mid-day meal purpose. Inadequacy of the teachers was also a

problem faced by the government primary schools in common in all the five

states. In some of the cases we have found primary schools functioning with a

single teacher and also sometimes with a single classroom. The availability of

supportive infrastructure such as separate toilets for boys and girls, drinking

water and electricity was also found to be absent in some of the government


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 19

schools. These factors had a definite impact on the functioning and the quality of

education in these schools.

An important aspect brought out during the school survey was that majority of the

teachers of primary schools did not stay in the village where the school was

located. They commuted from the nearby urban locations. This would have a

direct effect on the functioning of the school since regular presence of the teacher

is not guaranteed for various reasons. In case of a single teacher school, the

school may not function at all if the teacher staying in another village/town fails to

come. Hence this has a direct impact on the quality of education in these villages.

In our survey we found nearly 59% of government primary school teachers in MP,

54% in UP, 60% in AP and 70% in Karnataka who stayed in another village6. In

Rajasthan this proportion were quite different for the two districts. While in Jalore

(desert area) only 35% government school teachers did not stay in the village, in

Chittaurgarh (tribal district) this proportion was 75%. This proportion for private

schools is significantly low. In MP all the teachers of private school were found to

be staying in the same village.

Another point regarding quality of education in primary schools is that we found

most of the government primary schools having the system of multiple classes

being conducted simultaneously in the same room. This implies that students of

more than one standard are made to sit in a combined class taken by a single

teacher due to insufficient number of classrooms and/or teachers. This raises a

definite question over the amount of attention that the teacher would be able to

give to the students. The problem of multiple classes has a specific relevance in

the case of single teacher schools and also to the absenteeism of teachers in

other primary schools. We found majority of government primary schools of our

6 This phenomenon has a direct relation with our household survey where children do give absenteeism of teacher as a reason for irregular or non-attendance in school.


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 20

sample in all the five selected states having this system. However, the situation in

private schools is totally different irrespective of the state. None of the private

schools in any of the states have reported multiple class system being practised.

During our survey we found some of the primary schools located at a distance

from the village. This was specifically found in the northern states. E.g. one of the

schools in Chittaurgarh district of Rajasthan was about 1.5 km away from the

village it belonged to. This acted as a discouraging factor for students to attend

schools as it was inconvenient for them to reach. Earlier in the household survey

we found students giving distance to school as a reason for irregular attendance

particularly in case of the girl child. However in the southern states the primary

schools were located in the village. In Karnataka we found that in case a village

was spread over a larger area, there were multiple schools. In one of the schools

in Karnataka, although the main school building was outside the village, the

primary section was built separately within the village.

The teachers of the government primary schools are generally involved in a

number of non-teaching activities. Through discussions we found that they had to

do election related work such as preparation of voters’ list, identity cards and

election duties, demography related work such as population surveys, animal

surveys, economic surveys and even medical work such as pulse polio

immunization. They were also involved in many community based activities in the

villages at regular intervals. This is because the school teachers were the most

educated and qualified persons available at the village level. These activities

were although not a part of their routine, they had to spend a day or more for the

work. The school during these days, therefore, did not work regularly or perhaps

not at all. Although these activities do not waste much time of the teachers, they

do affect the continuity of teaching. As a result both students and teachers tend

to loose interest ultimately affecting the overall quality of education.


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 21

Another issue that we came across in the survey was about the difference in

enrolment of girls in public and private schools. Apart from the large difference in

the average enrolments of students in private and public schools, we found that

the ratio of girls to the boys in private school was much lower than that in public

schools. The ratio of number of girls per 100 boys in private schools was 83 in

MP, 81 in UP, 83 in Karnataka and 78 in AP. In the two districts of Rajasthan this

ratio was found to be lowest with 32 in Jalore and 53 in Chitttaurgarh. On the

other hand the same ratio for government schools was 107, 95 and 83 for MP,

UP and Rajasthan and, 107 and 90 for AP and Karnataka respectively. This

clearly indicated that parents preferred boys over girls for affording better quality

of education in the private schools. Thus, in case of the households sending their

one child to public schools and the other one to private, the probability of the child

going to private school being a boy is almost one.

V. Conclusion

In the present paper, we have attempted direct verification of the Planning

Commission’s basic premise that progress in this country in social sectors by-

passed weaker sections and thus it was not inclusive. The weaker section did not

have effective access to basic services like primary education. The definition of

‘weaker section’, however, was not clear. Traditionally it is defined in terms of

social criteria and hence it would include SC and ST population. Because of this

separate data are collected and regularly reported about these categories on

various parameters including literacy and enrolment. It appears that these

categories had higher or similar access to the primary education in the country

from the available evidence. Thus, the ‘weaker sections’ referred to by the

Planning Commission must be defined in economic terms and should include

people living below poverty line (BPL). However, direct data collection and

reporting is not yet regularly done for this category perhaps because their exact

identification based on objective criteria is problematic. With a massive effort in


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 22

terms of BPL Census at national level conducted in 2002-03, it became possible

to get some idea about different parameters for this category.

In the present paper, we applied BPL criteria for the ‘weaker section’ and used

the results of a large sample survey of BPL families in 5 different states to directly

get some evidence on the premise of the Planning Commission. Our finding is

that this category (BPL) does have serious problem of insufficient access to

primary education. In terms of literacy, we found that economic progress alone

does not guarantee improved access of the poor to education. The effort and

policies need to be focussed, therefore, on improvement in access of the poor

population to the services. The overall enrolment ratios in primary section, both

for the states and of the nation, could be a result of the lower enrolments among

the children of the poor households. This is evident from the lower enrolment

figures among the children of the poor population in our sample. However, our

finding from the sample of the BPL families has shown that several incentives

given by the government to induce children of poor families to attend primary

schools regularly seem to be reaching the target group remarkably well. Thus the

benefits like mid-day meal and free textbooks in the government schools reach

almost all children in the primary schools even in the BPL households. The

coverage of BPL households even in other benefits like free school uniforms,

cash subsidies and free school supplies was also found to be substantial from

our BPL household survey. Thus we can conclude that problem of insufficient

effective access of the poor to the primary education and enrolment still persists

in spite of such incentives offered by the government to the BPL families. This

calls for change in the policy level thinking addressing other aspects to alleviate

the problem. In this context, it is important to note our findings from the sample

survey of primary schools in the same localities regarding some problems

pertaining to the facilities and quality of education in the government primary

schools. The major problems we found with government primary schools in

almost all states were: frequent absenteeism and irregularity of school teachers

since several of them do not stay in the same village as the school; pathetic


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 23

physical conditions of school buildings and classrooms; insufficient and

inadequate number of classrooms per school to accommodate all the standards

in different rooms and hence system of having multiple standards in the same

room at the same time; prevalence of several single teacher schools;

innumerable non-teaching activities thrust on school teachers that divert their

attention, punctuality and regularity in teaching the students; inadequate

supportive infrastructure in the school like toilet for boys and girls separately,

drinking water facility and electricity. All these adversely affect the quality of

education provided by the government primary schools and severely discourage

pupils from attending. An important step in this regard is the estimation of the

required scaling up effort in the rural areas of the country to increase provisioning

of physical infrastructural facilities and ensuring adequate manpower supply and

thereby improving the effective access of the poor to the primary education

services ultimately leading to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.


W.P. No. 2008‐02‐02 Page No. 24

References

1. Planning Commission (2006): Towards Faster and More Inclusive Growth

– An Approach to the 11th Five Year Plan, Govt. of India, June 14.

(Referred to as “Approach Paper to 11th Plan”).

2. Bajpai, Nirupam, Ravindra H. Dholakia and Jaffery Sachs (2005), ‘Scaling Up Primary Education Services in Rural India: Case Studies of Uttar

Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh’, Centre on Globalization and Sustainable

Development, Columbia University, New York.

3. Bajpai, Nirupam and Ravindra H. Dholakia (2006), ‘Scaling Up Primary

Education Services in Rural Rajasthan: Public Investment Requirements

and Policy Reform’, Centre on Globalization and Sustainable

Development, Columbia University, New York.

4. Bajpai, Nirupam and Ravindra H. Dholakia (2007), ‘Scaling Up Primary

Education Services in Rural Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka: Public

Investment Requirements and Policy Reform’, Centre on Globalization and

Sustainable Development, Columbia University, New York.

5. State Report Card, http://www.dpepmis.org

6. Census of India 2001
http://www.dpepmis.org/

Documents

Access of Poor Households to Primary Education in Rural IndiaThe main objective of the working paper series of the IIMA is to help faculty members, research staff and doctoral students